Chapter 63 Chapter Fourteen Locke's Political Philosophy

Section 1 Hereditaryism Immediately after the English Revolution in 1688, in 1689 and 1690, Locke wrote his two Treatises on Politics, the second of which is very important in the history of political thought. The first of these two treatises is a criticism of the theory of hereditary power.It is a reply to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriar A cha: or The Natural Power of Kings, published in 1680, but written under Charles I .Sir Robert Filmer, a devoted supporter of the divine right, survived until 1653 and must have been deeply saddened by the execution of Charles I and the victory of Cromwell.However, although the writing of "On the Ancestors" was not earlier than the Civil War, it was before these tragic events, so it is natural for the book to express its awareness of the existence of subversive theories.That doctrine, as Filmer says, was not new in 1640.In fact, the writings of Protestant and Protestant theologians, who, in their respective disputes with Protestant and Protestant princes, had vehemently asserted the right of subjects to revolt against immoral princes, supplied Sir Robert with a rich polemical material.

Sir Robert Filmer was knighted by Charles I, and his house is said to have been looted ten times by the Parliamentarians.He thought that Noah set sail on the Mediterranean Sea and assigned Africa, Asia, and Europe to Ham, Shem, and Japheth.He argued that, according to the British Constitution, the House of Lords is nothing more than giving advice to the king, and the House of Commons has even less power; he said that the king alone makes laws, because the laws are entirely issued by his will.According to Filmer, the king is quite free from all human sway, and cannot be bound by the decrees of his ancestors, nor even by his own, for "it is impossible for a man to make laws for himself." There might be something."

These observations show that Filmer belongs to the top and first-class figures of the divine authorization school. "On the Patriarchs" begins by refuting such a "common view": "Human beings are endowed with inherent freedom from all subordination, to choose at will the political form they like, and the right of any one person to control others. , was originally conferred by the discretion of the masses." Filmer said, "This theory was originally contrived in the lecture hall." According to him, the truth is not so at all; It was given to Adam, and the royal power was passed down from Adam to his successors, and finally to the hands of various monarchs in modern times.He asserts that the present king "either is, or should be regarded as, the alternate successor of the two primordial patriarchs who were first the natural parents of all mankind." It seems that our patriarchs did not fully appreciate his work The prerogative of the ruler of the world, for "the desire for liberty was the first cause of Adam's fall." The desire for liberty was a passion which Sir Robert Filmer considered evil.

The demands of Charles I, and the demands of the great axes on his side, were no less than those which previous ages would have admitted to kings.Filmer points out that the English Jesuit Parsons and the Scottish Calvinist Buchanan, though almost never in agreement on other matters, both held that a king could be deposed by his subjects.Needless to say, Parsons had the Protestant Queen Elizabeth on his mind, and Buchanan had Mary, the Protestant Queen of Scots, on his mind.Buchanan's theory was confirmed by success, but Parsons' theory was refuted by the execution of his colleague Campin.

Even before the Reformation, theologians tended to believe that limiting kingship was a good thing.It was part of a church-state struggle that raged throughout Europe for most of the Middle Ages.In this struggle, the state relies on armed force, and the church relies on wisdom and holiness.When the church has both these virtues, it wins the struggle; when it becomes only smart, it loses.But the words of pious and famous men against the power of the king are still recorded, and they were certainly intended for the benefit of the pope, and it was not unreasonable to support the self-government of the subjects.Filmer said:

"The insidious and cunning scholastics are determined to demote the king to the position of the pope, and think that the safest way is to lift the subjects above the king, so that the pope can replace the king." He quoted the theologian Bella Min In the words of (Bellarmine), Bellarmine's customary power is granted by man (that is, not granted by God), "as long as the subject does not grant it to the king, this power is among the subjects"; Moore said that in this way, Bellamin "made God the single-handed creator of a democratic class." This seemed to him quite absurd. Come feel the same.

Filmer talked about the origin of political power, not from any contract, let alone any reason for the public good, but completely traced back to the father's authority over his children.His opinion is: the origin of the emperor’s authority lies in the obedience of children to their parents; the ancestors in Genesis are the monarchs; the kings are the descendants of Adam, and they should be treated as such at least; The right of course is the same as that of the father; and the son is by nature never free from the father's right, even if the son grows up and the father is old. The whole set of statements, when modern people think about it, finds it so absurd and bizarre, it is hard to believe that it is still a solemn statement.We are not used to tracing the old roots of political power from the story of Adam and Eve.We believe that parental power should be completely terminated when a son or daughter reaches the age of twenty-one. Before that, parental power must be strictly restricted by the state and the independent voice gradually acquired by the sons and daughters. This is a clear truth.We recognize that mothers and fathers have at least equal rights.But, apart from all these reasons, no modern man, except in Japan, would ever think of assuming that political power should be anywhere equal to that of parents over their children.Indeed, in Japan there is still a belief in something very similar to Filmer's doctrine, and all professors and primary and secondary school teachers must teach it.The emperor's lineage goes back to the sun goddess, and he is the descendant of the goddess; other Japanese are also descended from the goddess, but belong to the last branch of her family.Therefore, the emperor is a god, and anyone who defies the emperor is called blasphemy.This theory was largely fabricated in 1868, but now it is claimed in Japan that it has been passed down orally since the beginning of the world.

The attempt to force the same claim on Europe, of which Filmer's Patriarchs was a part, failed.What reason?It is absolutely against human nature to admit this statement; for example, in addition to Japan, the ancient Egyptians, the Mexicans and Peruvians before the Spanish conquest all believed in this statement.At a certain stage of human evolution, this statement came naturally.Britain under the Stuart dynasty has passed this stage, but modern Japan has not. The failure of the doctrine of divine sanction in England was due to two main reasons.One is the diversity of sects; the other is the power struggle between the monarch, the nobles and the upper bourgeoisie.Speaking of religion, from the time of Henry VIII onwards, the King of England was the head of the Church of England, which opposed both Catholicism and most Protestant denominations.The Church of England prides itself on being eclectic; the preface to the King James Version of the Bible begins: "I, the Church of England, have, since the first compilation of the Common Prayer Book, been wise to remain in the middle between the two extremes." On the whole, this The compromise appealed to most people.

Queen Mary and King James II tried to drag the nation to Rome, the victors in the civil war tried to drag the nation to Geneva, but these attempts finally failed. After 1688, the Church of England Power is unshakable.However, its opposition survived.The Dissenters, in particular, were vigorous men, and were numerous among the wealthy merchants and bankers who were growing in power. The King's theological position is somewhat unique in that he is head of the Church of Scotland as well as the Church of England.In England he had to rely on the bishop and reject Calvinism; in Scotland he had to reject the bishop and believe in Calvinism.The Stuart kings were so pure and firm in their religious beliefs that it was impossible for them to adopt the duplicity which troubled them more in Scotland than in England.But from 1688 onwards, for the sake of political advantage, the kings acquiesced in practicing two religions at the same time.This hinders religious zeal and makes it difficult to see them as apotheosis.In any case, neither Catholics nor dissidents can acquiesce to any religious claims that represent monarchy.

The king, the nobility, and the wealthy middle class formed different alliances at different times.Under Edward IV and Louis XI, the king united with the middle class against the nobility; under Louis XIV, the king united with the nobility against the middle class;A king is strong if he has one of the other two factions with him; if both factions unite against him, he is alone. Especially because of the above reasons, Locke has no difficulty in destroying Filmer's argument. In terms of reasoning, Locke certainly has light hands.He pointed out that even when parental authority is being discussed, the mother's authority should be equal to that of the father.He insisted that the law of primogeniture was unjust, but if hereditary was to be the basis of the monarchy, it would be unavoidable.The so-called existing monarchs are in a practical sense the descendants of Adam, and Locke ridiculed the ignorance of this statement.Adam can only have one descendant heir, but no one knows which one.Was Filmer, he asked, arguing that, if the true heir could be found, all existing monarchs should place the crown at his feet?If Filmer's foundation of monarchy is accepted, all kings, except one at most, will become usurpers, completely incapable of demanding obedience from subjects under real rule.He said, besides, patriarchy is also a temporary power, and it is not as good as life and property.

According to Locke, apart from the rest of the basic grounds, that is, the above reasons cannot recognize hereditary system as the basis of legitimate political power.Therefore, in the second political treatise, he seeks a more secure basis. Hereditaryism has all but disappeared in politics.During my lifetime, the emperors of Brazil, China, Russia, Germany, and Austria disappeared and were replaced by dictators who had no ambition to establish hereditary dynasties.The aristocracy lost its privileges everywhere in Europe except in England, where it was nothing but a historical form. In most countries all this is relatively recent and has much to do with the rise of dictatorships of all kinds, since the traditional systems of power have been swept away and the habits necessary for a successful democracy have not had time to develop stand up.However, there is a large organization that has never had any hereditary elements, and that is the Catholic Church.Dictatorships of every kind, if they survive, can be expected to gradually develop a political form similar to that of the Church. This has already happened to the big companies in the United States. Those big companies have almost the same power as the government, or they have always had it before the Pearl Harbor incident. Curiously, the political abandonment of patrimonialism in democracies has had little effect in the economic sphere. (In totalitarian states, economic power has been merged with political power.) We still take it for granted that one should bequeath property to one's children; in other words, while we reject hereditary doctrine with respect to political power, we recognize patrimonialism with regard to economic power .Political dynasties disappear, but economic dynasties survive.Now I am neither arguing for nor against such a difference between the two powers; I am simply pointing out that there is such a thing, and that most people are not aware of it.Consider, the reader, how natural it seems to us to be hereditary to control the lives of other men, deriving from great wealth, and you will better understand how a man like Sir Robert Filmer would have acted in relation to the power of kings. Think the same, and how great is the innovation represented by people who think like Locke. To understand how Filmer's theory came to be believed, and Locke's dissenting theory appeared revolutionary, we need only consider that kingdoms were then thought of as they are now thought of estates.A landowner has various important legal rights, chief among them the power to choose who stays on the land.Proprietary property may be passed by inheritance, and we feel that he who has inherited an estate has a just claim to all the privileges which the law thereby allows him.Yet this man was in the same position as those princes whose claims Sir Robert Filmer justified.There are now many great estates in California, the titles of which were actually bestowed by the King of Spain, or pretended to be his bestowments.He was only entitled to make that beneficence, (a) because Spain held a view similar to that of Filmer, and (b) because the Spaniards were able to defeat the Indians in war.Yet we hold that the descendants of those to whom he bestowed have a rightful title.I'm afraid that in the future, this matter will look as absurd as Filmer's today.Section 2 The State of Nature and the Law of Nature At the beginning of the second "Politics", Locke said that since he had explained that it is not feasible to trace the origin of political authority from his father's authority, he now wanted to propose what he believed to be the true source of dominion. He assumed that prior to all politics in the world, there was what he called a "state of nature", and he started from this.In this state there is a kind of "natural law", but the natural law system is composed of some divine orders, which are not imposed on people by any legislator in the world. How far the state of nature seemed to Locke to be an explanatory hypothesis, and how much he supposed it to have existed historically, is not known; An era that has existed.There is a social contract which establishes civil politics, by means of which man escapes from the state of nature.He also regards this as a more or less historical fact.But for the present we shall speak of the state of nature. Much of what Locke has to say about the state of nature and the law of nature is not new, but rehash of medieval scholasticism.Saint Thomas Aquinas put it this way: "Every law made by man is as much a law as it is derived from the law of nature. But if it contradicts the law of nature at any point, it immediately ceases to be a law; distortion." Throughout the Middle Ages, it was believed that natural law condemned "usury," that is, lending money at interest.The property of the church at that time consisted almost entirely of land, and landowners were always always borrowers, not moneylenders.But when Protestantism first came into being, the support it got—and especially the Calvinists got—came mainly from the wealthy middle classes, who were moneylenders, not debtors.Thus, first Calvin, then the neighboring Protestant denominations, and finally the Catholic Church, all sanctioned "usury."Here, too, another understanding of natural law is introduced, but no one doubts that such a thing exists. Many doctrines which have survived the destruction of the belief in natural law have sprung from this belief; for example, laissez-faire and the doctrine of the rights of man.These two doctrines are related to each other, and both have their origin in Puritanism.Two passages quoted by Tao Nai can illustrate this point. In 1604 a committee of the English House of Commons published: "All free subjects have a natural right of inheritance with respect to their lands, and to the free exercise of industry in the profession in which they are devoted and lived." Again in 1656 Joseph Lee wrote: "It is an undeniable golden rule that everyone, by the light of nature and rationality, must do what is in the best interest of the individual.  …Private prosperity will be the public interest." If it weren't for the words "candlelighted by the light of nature and reason", it could be said that it was written in the nineteenth century. I repeat, there is nothing new in Locke's politics.In this, Locke resembles most of those who have made their name by their ideas.Generally speaking, the first person to come up with a novel idea is so far ahead of his time that everyone thinks he is ignorant, and the result is that he has been obscured and soon forgotten.Later, people in the world gradually became psychologically prepared to accept this view, and the person who published it at this lucky moment took full credit for it.That was the case with Darwin, for example; poor Lord Montpateau became a laughing stock. Locke is less original than Hobbes about the state of nature; Hobbes sees it as a state in which there is war of all against all, and life is sinister, crude, and short.But Hobbes was considered an atheist.Locke's theory of the state of nature and natural law accepted by his predecessors cannot be separated from its theological basis; modern liberalism often removes the theological basis to talk about this theory, so it lacks a clear logical basis. The belief in a blissful "state of nature" in ancient times derives partly from biblical stories about patriarchal times and partly from the classical myth of the so-called golden age.Most people believe in the belief that the ancient is bad, and it is only with the theory of evolution. Here is a passage from the closest approximation to a definition of the state of nature found in Locke's writings: "It is truly a state of nature that all men live together according to reason, and that there is no common superior to arbitrate between them." This is not about the lives of savages, but about a utopian society composed of virtuous anarchists who never need police and courts, because they always follow "reason", and reason follows "nature". "Law" is a thing, and natural law itself is composed of those laws of behavior that are believed to have originated from God. (For example, "Thou shalt not kill" is part of natural law, but traffic rules are not.) A few more quotations will make Locke's meaning appear more clearly. "[He says] that in order to understand political power rightly, and to trace it back to its origin, we must examine the state in which man is naturally in; that state is that, within the limits of the laws of nature, he is perfectly free to regulate his actions, To dispose of one's own property and person; without asking permission, nor obeying the will of any other. "It is also a state of equality, in which all power and dominion are reciprocal, and no one possesses more than the other; and one thing is clear: Creatures of the same kind, without distinction from each other, are born to be bathed in exactly the same Natural grace, exercise the same faculties, then they should be equal to each other, there is no relationship of subordination; Unless the God-Master of them all manifests his will, and exalts one of them above the others, and gives him an unquestionable right of dominion and sovereignty by a definite appointment. "But although this [state of nature] is a state of freedom, it is not a state of madness: in it man has irrepressible freedom to dispose of his person or goods, yet he is not free to injure himself, not even kills whatever creature he possesses, unless some higher use than mere preservation requires it. The state of nature has a law of nature governing it, which compels obedience; Reason, which is the law of nature, teaches all mankind that, since all men are equal and independent, no one should injure another's life, health, liberty, or property" (because we are all the property of God). It immediately appears, however, that while the majority of men are in the state of nature, there will still be a few who do not live according to the laws of nature, and that the laws of nature therefore provide, within certain limits, practicable means of repelling such criminals.According to him, in the state of nature each man can defend himself and what is for him. "Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood shall be shed" is part of the law of nature.When a thief is stealing my property, I can even kill him. This right still exists after the establishment of politics. Of course, if there is politics, if the thief escapes, I must give up private revenge and sue the law. There is a great defect in the state of nature. While it exists, man is dependent on himself for the defense of his rights, so that each is a judge in his own case. Politics is the remedy for this evil, but it is not the natural one.According to Locke, man escapes from the state of nature by a contract which creates a government.Not every contract ends the state of nature, but only those constituting a political unity.The governments of independent nations are now in a state of nature with respect to each other. In a text probably aimed at Hobbes, Locke said that the state of nature and the state of war are not the same thing, but rather its opposite.Locke, after explaining the right to kill thieves on the basis that thieves can be regarded as waging war on people, said: "Here we see a clear distinction, 'the difference between a state of nature and a state of war,' although some people confuse these two states, but they are as far apart as a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and protection, As far from each other as a state of hostility, hatred, violence and mutual destruction." Presumably the law of nature should be regarded as wider than the state of nature, since in the former there are thieves and murderers, whereas in the latter there are no such criminals.At least, this view points out a way to resolve an apparent contradiction of Locke's that he sometimes describes the state of nature as a state in which everyone is virtuous, and at other times discusses the protection against the encroachment of wicked people in the state of nature. What to do. Some parts of what Locke says about natural law are astonishing.For example, he says that captives in just wars are slaves by natural law.He also said that every man by nature has the right to punish an assault on himself or his property, even by taking life for it.Locke didn't impose any restrictions, so if I caught a man who was sneaking, I was obviously justified in shooting him by the law of nature. Property occupies a very prominent place in Locke's political philosophy and, according to him, was the chief reason for the establishment of civil politics: "Men have united into nations, and have placed themselves under politics, whose great chief end is to preserve their property; and in the state of nature many things are lacking for the preservation of property." This set of statements about the state of nature and the law of nature are all clear in one sense, but completely inexplicable in another sense.What Locke thought was clear; but how he came to think it was not clear.We know from the foregoing that Locke's ethics is utilitarian ethics, but when he examines the issue of "rights", he does not put forward utilitarian opinions.Things like this abound in all the philosophy of law taught by jurists. ·Legal rights can be defined: Broadly speaking, if a person can seek legal protection from harm, he is said to have legal rights.A person generally has legal rights to his property, but if he possesses (say) a large quantity of prohibited cocaine, he has no legal remedies against the person who stole his cocaine.But the legislator always had to decide what legal right to create, and naturally relied on the notion of "natural" rights as rights to be secured by law. Now I intend to give a theory like Locke's, in as non-theological language as possible.If it is assumed that ethics, and the classification of actions into "yes" and "wrong," logically precedes actual law, then it is possible to reformulate the theory in terms that do not involve mythological history.In order to deduce the law of nature, we might as well ask the question like this: In the absence of law and politics, what kind of things did a person A do against a person B, so that a person B has a legitimate reason to retaliate against a person A?And in each specific situation, what kind of retaliation is justified?It is generally held that no one is to be blamed for defending himself against a murderous attack by another, even going so far as to kill the assailant if necessary.He could equally defend his sons and daughters, or indeed any member of the general public.In such matters, the existence of laws against homicide is irrelevant, provided that the assailant dies before police assistance is called in (as is likely to happen).So we have to rely on "natural" rights.Man also has the right to defend his own property, though opinions differ as to how much harm may be done to a thief within the bounds of justice. In relations between states, as Locke put it, "natural" law applies.Under what circumstances is war justified?As long as there is no international government of any kind, the answer to this question is not a jurisprudential one, but a purely ethical one.This question must be answered in the same way as for an individual in anarchy. Theories of law have always been based on the notion that the "rights" of the individual should be protected by the state.In other words, if a man suffers an injury of the kind for which the principles of natural law justify retaliation, the statutes should provide that retaliation is to be effected by the state. If you see someone attacking your brother and you want to kill him, you have the right to kill him if you can't save your brother by other means.In a state of nature, if someone has killed your brother, you have the right to kill him—or so Locke thought.But if there is a law, you lose this right, because it is taken over by the state. If you kill in self-defense or in defense of others, you have to prove to the court that it was justification for killing. Then, as far as the moral law is independent of the statutes, we might as well regard the "natural law" as equal to the moral law.If there is to be any difference between good laws and bad laws, there must be this moral law.For Locke, the problem was simple because the moral law was ordained by God and found in the Bible.Once this theological basis is removed, the problem becomes more difficult.But so long as there is a moral distinction between right and wrong, we can say this: In a society without government, it is the law of nature that decides what is morally right and what is wrong; To the extent possible, natural law should be used as a guideline to convey the spirit of natural law. The notion that individuals have certain inalienable rights is, in its absolute form, contradictory to utilitarianism, that is, to the doctrine of what is called just conduct, that is, that which is most conducive to promoting general happiness.But in order for a doctrine to be an adequate basis of law, it need not be true in all possible cases, but only in the vast majority of cases.We can all imagine occasions when killing could be said to be justified, but such occasions are too rare to be an argument against the crime of murder.Similarly, from a utilitarian point of view, it may be desirable (I am not saying that it is necessary) to retain a certain range of personal freedom for everyone.If this is the case, even though there are inevitable exceptions to human rights, the doctrine of human rights is also an appropriate basis for corresponding laws.Utilitarians must always focus on the practical effects of the theory of human rights, and study the theory of human rights as the basis of law, and cannot criticize the theory of human rights as violating their own ethics from the beginning.Section 3 Social Contract In seventeenth-century political thought there were two principal theories concerning the origin of government.One class of theories we have already exemplified by Sir Robert Filmer: this class of theories holds that God has vested power in certain men, and that these men, or their descendants, constitute a legitimate government, and that to resist it is not only treason, but It is blasphemy. This view has been accepted by the hearts of the people since ancient times: in almost all the first civilized countries, the kings are holy figures.The kings naturally regarded it as a wonderfully good theory.The nobles had motives for it and motives against it. In favor of this theory, it emphasized patrimonialism and solemn support for resistance to the sudden rise of the merchant class.This motive predominates if the middle classes are more feared or hated by the nobility than the king.If the opposite was the case, especially if the nobles themselves had any hope of attaining great power, they tended to oppose the king, and thus rejected all the divine right of kings. The other main class of theory, represented by Locke, held that civil politics was the result of contract, not something established by theocracy, but a purely temporal affair.Some writers regard the social contract as a historical fact, others as a legal fiction; for all these the important problem is to find an earthly origin for the ruling power.As a matter of fact, they could think of no substitute for divine authorization, except this imaginary covenant.All but the conspirators felt that some reason must be found for obedience to the government, and they thought it not enough to say that political power was convenient for the majority.In a certain sense, politics must have a kind of right to be obeyed by strong people. If we don't say that it is God's order, it seems that we can only say that it is a right granted by contract.The doctrine, therefore, that politics is instituted by contract, found popularity among almost all those who opposed the divine right of kings.There is a hint of this theory in the thought of Thomas Aquinas, but its earliest serious development is found in the writings of Grotius. Contractarianism may become a theory that justifies authoritarian politics.Hobbes, for example, believed that there was a contract among citizens to transfer all power to a chosen sovereign, but the sovereign was not a party to the contract and was therefore bound to obtain unlimited power.This theory could have been the pretext for Cromwell's totalitarian state from the beginning; after the Restoration, it found support for Charles II.However, in the contract theory that Locke talked about, the government is a party to the contract. If it does not perform its obligations in the contract, it can have legitimate reasons to object to it.Locke's teachings are more or less democratic in nature, but the democratic element is limited by the (implicit but not explicit) insight that those who do not own property should not be counted citizens. Let us now see what Locke has to say about the present question. First there is a definition of political power: "By political power I mean the right to make laws, to make laws for the regulation and protection of property, with capital punishment, down to all lenient punishments, and to use social power for the enforcement of these laws and for the defense of the country against foreign aggression. the right to power, and all for the common good.” According to him, politics was the remedy for the inconveniences that, in a state of nature, each man was a judge in his own case.But this is not a remedy if the sovereign is a party to the dispute, since the sovereign is both judge and plaintiff.For these reasons the opinion arose, that the government could not be an absolute government, and that the judiciary should be independent of the executive.This argument has a great future both in England and in the United States, but we shall leave it at present. Locke said that every man has a natural right to punish assaults on himself or his property, even to death.Where, and only where, this right is transferred to society or to the law, there is political society. Absolute monarchy does not count as a civil government, since there is no neutral authority to adjudicate disputes between monarch and subjects; indeed, the monarch remains in a state of nature in relation to his subjects.It is useless to hope that a man of rough nature will be moral because he is a king. "The man who would be arrogant and injurious in the woods of America will probably not be much kinder on the throne; and there, I am afraid, he will find learning and religion to justify everything he has done to his subjects, and whoever dares to doubt people, the sword immediately silenced them." Absolute monarchy is just as if people have protection against smelly cats and foxes, "but are willing to be devoured by lions, and it can even be said to be safe." Civil society is bound to submit to a majority unless there is agreement that a larger number is needed (for example, as in the United States, when the Constitution is to be amended or a treaty ratified.) This may sound democratic, but it must be remembered that Locke first thought that women and the poor were to be excluded from civil rights. "The origin of political society depends on the consent of individuals to unite into a single society." According to him (somewhat half-heartedly), this consent must have actually taken place at some time, although he admits that, except among the Jews, The origins of politics everywhere are prehistoric. The civil contract that establishes politics binds only those who made it; the contract made by the father must be renewed by the son. (Obvious, but impractical, from how Locke's principles follow. Any young American at twenty-one who declares, "I am not bound by the contract by which this republic was founded" will provoke Come in trouble.) According to him, the powers of government by contract never extend beyond the sphere of the common good.方才我引证了一句关于政治权力的话，话尾是“而这一切无非为了公益。”洛克好像没想起来问一问，这公益是要谁来判定的。显然，如果由政府判定，政府就总下有利于自己的决定。大概洛克会说，该让公民中过半数人判定。但是有许多问题得迅速决定，不容先查明选民的意见；其中和战问题或许是最重要的了。在这样的事情上，唯一的救治手段是给予舆论或舆论代表者们某种权限（例如弹劾权），有权事后惩办那些做出不孚人望的行为的行政官吏。但是这常常是个很不够的手段。 我在上文引证了一句话这里必须再引一遍： “人类结合成国家，把自己置于政治之下，其伟大的主要目的是保全他们的财产。” 和这个原则取一致，洛克宣称： “最高权力若不经本人同意，不得从任何人取走其财产的任何部分。” 更让人惊诧的是这个讲法：军队长官对部下兵士们尽管操生杀大权，却没有拿走金钱的权。（据此说来，在任何军队里，惩办轻微的违犯军纪，处罚款是不对的，却许可通过鞭挞一类的体伤来惩罚。这说明洛克让他的财产崇拜带到了何等荒谬的地步。） 课税问题依我们想总会给洛克作梗，他却丝毫无睹。他讲，政府的经费须由公民负担，但是要经公民同意，就是说有过半数人的同意。但请问，倒是为什么有过半数人的同意便够了？他说过，必须有个人的同意，政府才有正当理由拿走人的财产的任何部分。据我想，各人默然同意照过半数人的决定课税，这一点被洛克假定为包含在各人的公民身分中，而公民身分又被假定是由己自愿的。不必说，这一切有的时候和事实完全相反。关于自己应属于哪个国家，大部分人都没有有效的选择自由，至于想不属于任何国家，如今谁也没有这个自由。举个例，假使你是和平主义者，不赞成战争。随你住在什么地方，政府总要为军事用项拿走一些你的财产。有什么正当道理能使你不得不接受这点呢？我可以想像许多个答案，但是我认为哪个答案和洛克的原则也不是一致的。他未经适当考虑就横加上服从过半数的准则，而且除神话性的社会契约外，他也没提出从他的个人主义的前提到这准则的任何过渡。 社会契约按这里所要求的意义讲，总是一种架空悬想的东西，即使在从前某个时代实际有过一个契约创建了我们说的那个政府。美国是一个切题的实例。当初制订美国宪法时，人们是有选择自由的。即使在当时，有不少人投了反对票，这些人因此便不是契约的当事者。当然，他们本来可以离开那个国家，由于留下没走，结果被视为就得受他们未曾同意的契约的约束。但是实际上离开自己的国家通常是难事。谈到宪法既制订之后出生的人，所谓他们的同意，更加不着边际了。 与政府相对抗的个人权利这个问题，是个很难讲的问题。 民主主义者认为如果政府代表着过半数人，它有权强制少数，这太轻率了。在某个限度以内，这话定然不假，因为强制乃是政治少不得的要素。但是多数派的权神授说如果强调得过分，会成为和王权神授说几乎一样暴虐的东西。洛克在《政治论》里关于这问题没有怎么谈论，但是在他的《论宽容的书简》中考察得相当详尽，他主张凡信仰神的人，决不该因为他的宗教见解的缘故而被治罪。 契约创立了政治之说，当然是进化论以前的讲法。政治如同麻疹和百日咳，必是逐渐发展起来的，固然它也和这两种病一样，可能突然传入像南洋群岛那样的新地域。人们没研究过人类学以前，完全不知道政治的萌芽里所涉及的那种种心理过程，完全不知道促成人们采纳后来才知有益的那些制度风习的种种离奇古怪的理由。但是社会契约说当作一个法律拟制，给政治·找·根·据，也有·几·分道理。第四节财产 由我们以上就洛克对财产的意见所讲的话看来，可能觉得仿佛洛克拥护大资本家，既反对比他们社会地位高的人，也反对比他们社会地位低的人，然而这可说只是部分真实。在洛克的著作中，见得到预兆高度资本主义的学说的论调，也见得到隐隐预示较近乎社会主义的见解的论调，不调和地并存着。和在大部分其它问题上一样，在这个问题上单方面引证他的话容易歪曲他的意思。 下面我写出关于财产问题洛克的一些主要论断，以在书中出现的先后为序。 首先，据他讲每个人对他个人劳力的产品持有私人所有权，或者至少说，应当持有这种权。在工业生产前时代，这准则还不像到后来那么不现实。城市生产在当时主要是自己保有工具、自售产品的手艺人干的。至于农业生产，洛克所隶属的那个学派认为“小农自耕制”算是最好的制度。他讲，人能够耕多少田地，他就可以保有多少田地，但不得更多。他好像随随便便地不理会在欧洲的所有国家，若不经一次流血革命，这个方案可说简直就没有实现的可能。到处农田大部分属于贵族们所有，他们从农民那里强征固定一部分（往往一半）农产品，或强征可能随时变动的地租。前一种制度盛行于法国和意大利，后一种制度盛行于英国。比较靠东方，到俄国和普鲁士，劳动者是农奴，他们为地主干活，实际上没有一点权利。这种旧制度在法国因为法国大革命而结束，在北意大利和西德意志，由于法国革命军的侵略宣告终了。在普鲁士废止农奴制度，是被拿破仑战败的结果；在俄国，是克里米亚战争失败的结果。但是在这两个国家，贵族仍保持了地产。在东普鲁士，这种制度虽然受到纳粹的严厉管制，一直存留到现在； 在俄国和现今的立陶宛、拉脱维亚、爱沙尼亚，由于俄国革命，贵族被剥夺了土地。在匈牙利、罗马尼亚和波兰，他们存留下来；在东波兰，贵族们在1940年被苏联政府“清算”。不过苏联政府竭尽了一切能事在俄国全境改行集体耕作制，不改行小农自耕制。 在英国，向来的发展比较复杂。在洛克的时代，农村劳动者的处境因为存在着公有地而有所缓和：农村劳动者对公有地保有重要的权利，因此便能够自产相当大一部分粮食。这种制度乃是中世纪的遗制，近代头脑的人是不以为然的，他们说从生产的观点看，这种制度不经济。于是有了一个圈占公有地运动，从亨利八世年间开始，在克伦威尔统治时代继续下去，但是直到1750年左右才雷厉风行起来。从那时以后，大约九十年之间，一块又一块的公有地被圈起来，移交给当地的地主。每圈一回，就需要国会有个法令，于是操纵国会两院的贵族们无情地运用他们的立法权肥己，而把农业劳动者推到饥馑的边缘。逐渐，由于工业的发达，农业劳动者的境况有了改善，因为否则防止不了他们往城市迁移。现在，由于有劳埃德－乔治所创立的税制，结果贵族迫不得已放弃了他们的大半农业财产。但是那些也拥有城市财产或工业财产的贵族们，却一直能够紧握住他们的不动产。迄今没发生急①指第二次世界大战后起。——译者剧的革命，却有一种现今还在进行着的渐次过渡。目前，那些仍旧富有的贵族们，其财富来源都是仰赖城市财产或工业财产。 这段漫长的发展过程，除在俄国外，可以看作符合洛克的原则。事情怪的是，他虽然能够提出需要有那么多革命然后才可以付诸实施的学说，然而却没丝毫征象表现出他认为当时存在的制度不公平，或察觉这制度与他倡导的制度不同。 劳动价值说——即生产品的价值取决于耗费在该产品上的劳动之说——的创立，有人归之于马克思，有人归之于李嘉图；不过这种学说在洛克的思想中就有了，而洛克所以产生这种思想又是由于有上溯至阿奎那的一系列前人。陶奈总结经院派的学说时讲： “这种议论的精髓就是，制造货品的手艺人，或运输货品的商人，于理可以要求报酬，因为他们全在自己的职业中出劳力，满足公共的需要。万难容赦的罪过是投机者和经纪人的罪过，因为这般人是靠榨取公众必需品牟夺私利的。阿奎那教义的真传是劳动价值说，经院派学者中最末一人是卡尔·马克思。” 劳动价值说有两面，一是伦理的一面，另一面是经济的一面。换句话说，它可以是主张生产品的价值·应·当与耗费在这产品上的劳动成正比，也可以是主张·事·实·上这劳动规制着价格。后一说不过大致上正确，这是洛克所承认的。他讲，价值的十分之九由于劳动；但是关于其余十分之一，他毫无表示。他说，给一切东西加上价值差异的是劳动。他举印地安人所占据的美洲的土地为实例，这些土地因为印地安人不事开垦，几乎不具有丝毫价值。他好像并不领会，土地这东西只要一有人·愿·意在它上面劳动，尚未实际劳动之前，它就可以获得价值。假如你保有一块荒地，人家在上面发现石油，你没在这土地上干半点活也能卖一个好价钱。他不想这种情况，却只想到农业，在他那个时代自然如此。他赞成的小农自耕制对于像大规模开矿那样的事情是用不上的，因为这类事情需要高价设备和大批的工人。 人对自己劳动的产品持有权利这条原则，在工业文明里不管用。假定你在造福特汽车的一道工序里工作，那么总产额中哪一部分出于你的劳动，让人该如何估计呢？又假定你受铁道公司聘用管运输货物，有谁能断定你对生产这货物应视为有多大贡献？由于这种种理由，所以想防止剥削劳动的那班人才放弃了各自的产品各自有权的原则，赞同其社会主义化的组织生产与分配的方法。 向来倡导劳动价值说，通常是出于对某个被看成掠夺性的阶级的敌意。经院学者只要主张它，便是由于反对高利贷者，那种人大多是犹太人。李嘉图主张它以反对地主，马克思反对的是资本家。然而洛克好像是对任何阶级不抱敌意，在一种真空中主张这理论的。他唯一的敌意是对君主的，但是这跟他对于价值问题的意见没关系。 洛克的见解有的真古怪，我不知道怎么能把它说得近乎道理。他说，人不可有自己和家人尚未及吃完就非烂不可的那么多的李子；但是以合法手段能弄到多少黄金、多少块钻石，却是可以的，因为黄金和钻石是不腐烂的。他没想到持有李子的人，在李子未腐烂以前未尝不可把它卖掉。 洛克把贵金属的不腐坏性看得甚了不起，他讲，贵金属是货币的来源，也是财产不均的来源。他好像以一种空想的学究风度悲叹经济上的不平等，但是他当然并不认为还是以采取那种可能防止经济不平等的措置为明智。想必他和当时的所有人一样，深深感到富人主要作为艺术、文事的奖励者给文明带来的利益。在现代美国也存在着这种态度，因为美国的科学和艺术大大依赖富豪的捐助。在一定程度上，文明是社会不公推进的。这件事实是保守主义中极其体面之处的根据。第五节约制与均衡说 政治的立法、行政和司法几种职权应分离之说，是自由主义的特色；这学说是在英国在反对斯图亚特王室的过程中兴起的，至少关于立法部门和行政部门，是由洛克阐明的。他讲，立法部门和行政部门必须分离，以防滥用权力。当然不言而喻，他说到立法部门，指的是国会，他说行政部门，就指国王；不管他在逻辑上想要指什么意思，至少在情绪上他指的是这个。因此，他把立法部门看成是良善的，而行政部门则通常是恶劣的。 他说立法部门应当高于一切，只不过它必须能由社会罢免。言外之意，立法部门得像英国下院那样，不时通过民众投票来选举。立法部门要能够由民众罢免这个条件，认真讲来，对于在洛克时代英国宪法容许给国王和上院的作为立法权一部分的那种职分是个谴责。 洛克说，在一切组织得良好的政府中，立法部门和行政部门是分离的。于是就发生这个问题：在它们起冲突的时候该怎么办？据他说，行政部门如果不按适当时间召集立法官员，它就是与人民开战，可以通过暴力把它撤除。这显然是在查理一世治下发生的事情让人联想起的一种意见。从1628年到1640年，查理一世竭力要排除国会，独自掌权。洛克感觉这种事情必须制止，必要时诉之于内战。 他说，“暴力只可用来反对不公不法的暴力。”只要不存在一个什么团体，有法权宣判在什么时候暴力“不公不法”，这条原则在实际事情上就毫无用处。查理一世打算不经国会同意征收造舰税，这件事被他的反对者们断言为“不公不法”，而他断言它又公又法。只有内战的军事结局证明了他对宪法的解释是错误解释。美国的南北战争也发生了同样事情。 各州有退出联邦的权利吗？那谁也不知道；只有北军的胜利才解决了这个法律问题。我们从洛克及当时大多数写书的人见得到一个信念：任何正直的人都能知道什么事是公正合法的；这种信念完全没把双方的党派偏见的力量估计在内，也没考虑到不论在外界或在人良心当中都难建立一个对议论纷纭的问题能够下权威性裁断的法庭。在实际事情上，这种纠纷问题假如十分重大，并不由正义和法律解决，而完全由实力解决。 洛克也有些承认这一事实，固然他是用隐话承认的。他说，在立法部门和行政部门的争执中有某些案件在苍天底下没有法官。由于苍天不下明白的判决，所以这实际上就是说只能凭打仗取得解决。因为据认为当然苍天要把胜利给予较好的义举。任何划分政治权力的学说总离不了这类的见解。这种学说若体现在宪法中，那么避免不时打内战的唯一办法就是行使妥协和常识。但是妥协和常识乃是人的习性，成文宪法是体现不了的。 出人意料的是，尽管司法组织在洛克时代是个议论得火炽的问题，关于司法组织他却一言未发。一直到光荣革命时为止，法官总是随时能够被国王解职的；因此当法官的都要判国王的敌对者有罪，而把国王的同党无罪开释。革命之后，法官被定为非有国会两院的敕语奉答文不得免职。大家以为这样一来法官的判决就会遵照法律来下了；事实上，在牵涉宗派性的案件里，这无非让法官的偏见代替了国王的偏见。不管怎样，凡约制与均衡原则得势的地方，司法部门就和立法及行政部门并列，成为政府的第三个独立分支。最可注目的实例是美国最高法院。 约制与均衡说的历史很有趣。 在它的发祥国英国，是打算拿它来限制国王权力的，因为国王在革命以前向来完全控制行政部门。可是，逐渐行政部门成了依属国会的部门，因为一个内阁若没有下院中多数的支持，便不可能继续下去。这样，行政部门虽形式上不然，实际上成了国会选定的一个委员会；结果是立法权和行政权渐渐越来越不分。过去五十来年中间，由于首相有解散国会之权以及政党纪律日益严格化，出现又一步发展。现下国会中的多数派决定哪个政党执政，但是既决定这点之后，国会实际上不能再决定别的任何事情。动议的法案只要不是由政府提出的，几乎没有成立过。因而，政府又是立法部门又是行政部门，它的权力不过由于时而必要有大选才受到限制。当然，这种制度跟洛克的原则完全背道而驰。 在法国，因为孟德斯鸠极力鼓吹这个学说，它为法国大革命当中比较温和的各党派所信奉，但是雅各宾党人一胜利，就被扫除得暂时无声无息。拿破仑自然要它无用，不过在王政复辟时它复活了，拿破仑三世一抬头又随之湮灭。1871年这学说再一次复活，而且促成通过一部宪法，其中规定总统几乎无权，政府不能解散议会。结果就是让国民议会无论和政府对比起来或和选民对比起来都有了很大的权限。权力的划分有甚于近代英国，但是还够不上依洛克的原则应有的划分，因为立法部门凌驾于行政部门之上。这次大战之后法国宪法会成什么样子，未可逆料。 洛克的分权主义得到了最充分应用的国家是美国；在美国，总统和国会彼此完全独立，最高法院又独立在总统和国会以外。无意之中，美国宪法把最高法院定为立法部门的一个分支，因为只要最高法院讲不成为法律的就不算法律。最高法院的权限在名义上仅是解释性的权限，这实际上使那种权限更增大，因为这一来便难于指责那些想当然是纯法律性的决定了。这部宪法自来仅有一度惹起了武装冲突，这一点十足说明了美国人在政治上的贤达。 洛克的政治哲学在工业革命以前大体上一直适当合用。 从那个时代以来，它越来越无法处理各种重大问题。庞大的公司所体现的资产权力涨大得超乎洛克的任何想像以外。国家的各种必要职权——例如在教育方面的职权——大大增强。国家主义造成了经济权力和政治权力联盟，有时两者融为一体，使战争成为主要的竞争手段。单一的个体公民已经不再有洛克的思想中他所具有的那种权力和独立。我们的时代是个组织化时代，时代的冲突是组织和组织间的冲突，不是各个人之间的冲突。如洛克所说，自然状态还存在于国与国之间。先必须有一个新的国际性“社会契约”，我们才能领受从政治可以指望到的福惠。国际政府一旦创立起来，洛克的政治哲学有不少又适用了，虽然其中关于私有财产的那一部分不会这样。